Talk:Saving throw
Cap? Is there a cap on increasing saving throws by magical means and/or feats plus special abilities similar to the cap in place for AB and dodge AC? Harleyquin 09:55, 11 May 2006 (PDT) *There is a magical cap for saving throws. Its +20, which is received from weapon/armor/items that have magical bonuses to that saving throw. Any feat and/or bonuses from your abilities (even increasing your abilities by magical mean) increasse the base save and is not included in the magical cap. -- Pstarky 12:17, 11 May 2006 (PDT) Cap conflict You've got a conflict here: (http://www.nwnwiki.org/Spellcraft) "Note that there is a +20 cap to bonuses to saving throws. Spellcraft, the Champion of Torm's Sacred Defense, and any other saving throw bonuses (such as from spells or items) count toward the +20 cap" Compared with: (http://www.nwnwiki.org/Saving_Throw) A cap of +20 exists on saving throws increased by means of magical equipment. There is no limit however on increases to saving throws from feats (example Sacred Defense or from abilities... In a similar vein - does the Paladin Divine Grace & Blackguard Dark Blessing bonus cap out at all? Don't believe they do, but clarification somewhere would be nice. - pocketbeetle (14 August 2006, 17:46 PDT) * Sacred Defense counts towards the cap. I've changed the text.--Kamiryn 23:04, 14 August 2006 (PDT) Progression Can someone give the save progressions for high/mid/low? Thanks. (guest) 07:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC) *+1 for every 5, per what it says... no real trick to it beyond the described fact that it apparently counts skill bonuses (including feats and item bonuses) towards your saves. -- 03:19, 8 January 2012 :* A few things: First, since you are replying to such an old comment, you should be careful about claiming "what it says", since the article has changed significantly in the interim. The version of the article at the time the question was asked was this. Second, neither that old version nor the current say anything about "+1 for every 5". Third, the save progressions are not "+1 for every 5"; the low progression is +1 for every three class levels, the high progression is 2 plus 1 for every two class levels, and there is no mid progression. (Fourth, see base save, for which there was a link in this article even at the time the question was asked.) --The Krit 18:52, January 10, 2012 (UTC) Spellcraft saves vs. universal saves quandry This is related directly to Kamiryn's Cap discussion (above) but I need to word it slightly different as it has become a stumbling block for me. So here goes... If the saving throws against spells from Spellcraft count against the cap, once the cap has been reached via items and the applicable feats, it seems to imply the added bonus from spellcraft is redundant. True? If so, then it also seems to imply that if one is most concerned about the saves against spells rather than other sources (like against trap DCs, for instance) and desires to just touch the cap, that they must constantly do the arithmetic themselves since the character sheet doesn't furnish a "Spells only" entry for each of the 3 categories. True also? I'd appreciate any confirmation that I have grasped this nuance properly or some clarification to set me straight. Thank you, in advance.--Iconclast 19:55, February 25, 2011 (UTC) * Seems about right. --The Krit 16:09, March 1, 2011 (UTC) Relevant abilities vs. cap I've added spellcraft in to the list of factors that count towards the cap. However, the last sentence in the applicable paragraph... "Indirect bonuses, such as from increasing the relevant ability, do not count towards this cap." should probably be modified slightly to explain what a "relevant ability" is. Increases in DEX, CON & WIS may not contribute to the cap, but INT will count if it increases spellcraft enough to reach the next integer modifier (even a single additional point of INT could accomplish this with an existing modified spellcraft level of, say, 14 and INT of 13, for instance). Not sure about the most concise way to reword, though. Suggestions? --Iconclast (talk) 04:02, December 5, 2012 (UTC) * Changed "relevant ability" to "associated ability" since there is already an explanation of what the associated ability is. Good enough? --The Krit (talk) 01:16, December 27, 2012 (UTC) :* Seems better to me, TK. Eliminates the vagueness.--Iconclast (talk) 22:29, December 31, 2012 (UTC)